Arminianism and secular humanism

[TheAnalogman]

Awww, I don't get a prize?

Nope. A will have to do for now.

[Conductor42]

I don't interpret scripture, I simply believe it as written.

OK. Please explain to me in depth this part of the bible. Is it one sentence, as some believe, or 2 sentences? Also, please cover in depth the very first word.

בראשית ברא אלהים את השמים ואת הארץ
והארץ היתה תהו ובהו וחשך על־פני תהום ורוח אלהים מרחפת על־פני המים

[Sparko]

The real irony is that carico's position, hypercalvinism, is itself a heresy, putting herself outside of orthodoxy, the very claim she is making against Arminians.

And her leaving because of "personal attacks" after she started a thread like this is the ultimate in hypocrisy.

[Xavier]

Thread got moved... crap.

Not even a notice... :tsk:

[Eagle-eyeTerra]

The real irony is that carico's position, hypercalvinism, is itself a heresy, putting herself outside of orthodoxy, the very claim she is making against Arminians.

And her leaving because of "personal attacks" after she started a thread like this is the ultimate in hypocrisy.

Amen

[Raphael]

The real irony is that carico's position, hypercalvinism, is itself a heresy, putting herself outside of orthodoxy, the very claim she is making against Arminians.

when I commented that some of her staements were of hyper-calvinism and heresy, she decided I was arminian.

Apparantly if you don't agree 100% with what she thinks is calvinism (which as stated is hyper-calvinism) apparantly it make you an Arminian.

I also gather she doesn't have a clue what molinism would be. (considering she didn't have a clue about other soteriology

And her leaving because of "personal attacks" after she started a thread like this is the ultimate in hypocrisy.

Yup.

[Sparko]

Thread got moved... crap.

Not even a notice... :tsk:

um unless you knew the thread was moved you wouldn't be able to read the notice, and once you did, what good would a notice be?

[Conductor42]

Thread got moved... crap.

Not even a notice... :tsk:

wah.

[Conductor42]

I do hope she responds to my latest question to her.

[Xavier]

um unless you knew the thread was moved you wouldn't be able to read the notice, and once you did, what good would a notice be?

Because I come to threads from the thread notices?

[Conductor42]

If she doesn't answer my question I'll explain what I was talking about on Friday.
(Remind me in case I forget)

[bridgeforsale]

1) only through submitting to God can man overcome his depravity
2) Grace is a free gift available to all -- the elect are those who are willing to recieve it and who become part of Christs body (which is comprised of all believers)
3) God does indeed give man a choice -- submit to Him or die in our sins
4) after we "willingly" submit to God He gives us faith in different apportions and to be used in different ways.
5) God elected Christ foremost -- and those in the body of Christ
6) God wants all to be saved -- however, all will not be saved

The above statements aren't quotes from the bible. They are your words. So you need to quote verses as written instead of using your own paraphrases. That's called your interpretation rather than the word of God.

Submit or die. Where's the choice in that? Even most atheists know that isn't a free choice. If someone heals you of blindness, how much of a decision does it take for your ability to see? None. So why do Arminians persist in giving themselves credit for the work of God in them? That' called pride that doesn't come from the Spirit so it's a false teaching. Sorry.

I don't interpret scripture, I simply believe it as written. And since the words are so simple that even a child can understand them, then the bible is easy to understand. So divisions don't come from different interpretations, they come between those who believe the bible and those who don't as Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 11:9. But since you interpret the bible instead of believing it as written, then I can see why you don't provide quotes, but instead, your own words. Sorry, your own words aren't the word of God. So only provide the word of God or your arguments aren't valid.

And it isn't just a few verses in the NT that we believe, God's soveign choice and soveriegn will are all over the old and new testaments. Proverbs 16:9, "Ih his heart, a man plans his course. But the Lord determines his steps." The bible also tells us that God;

1) makes us strong
2) Hardens hearts
3) Saves his chosen
4) Raises up even the anti-Christ
5) Even sends us delusions
6) Keeps us from temptation
7) Delivers us from evil
8) Takes away our sins
9) creates or destroys us
10) Gives us spiritual gifts
11) Gives us wisdom
12) Keeps us safe
13) Gives us discernment
14) Gives us faith
15) Elects his chosen
16) Creates some for noble purposes and others for common use
17) Prepares some for destruction and others for redemption

So what's left for humans to do? Absolutely nothing. Not one thing. So Calvinism is biblical, Arminianism is not.

Can you explain how and why God hardens heats? Can you explain the election process. Finally, the choice between life and death isn't as clear cut as you make it seem -- since most choose death.

However, why don't you start with why God hardens hearts (and provide scriptural support for your assertions). Then tell me why you think God elects some to the exclusion of others (again -- Biblical support would be much appreciated).

And by the way -- you ignored my other response to you filled with Scriptural verses?? By the way Carico -- I think it was the way you opened with this post that riled everyone up. I think we should all take it down it a notch & discuss this topic reasonably (like the Christian grown ups I know we all are). I'll be honest -- I haven't met a Calvinist yet who was able to successfully rebut the logic of Arminianism. If you want to debate this we have a structured debate methodology here at Tweb -- I'll be glad to take on this topic in a civil manner -- which of course applies both ways (even though I admit its sort of boring -- after all I don't think this is something we should have heated arguments about). We're all guilty of heated rhetoric on these boards -- but I think a structured debate on this topic is called for since this topic is debated so frequently here on Tweb?

[bridgeforsale]

According to this post here...she is gone for good. We'll just have to wait and see I guess whether she answers any of the latest questions to her.

LJ

that's funny -- she complained about no one providing scriptural support for Arminian doctrine -- when I did exactly that her response was to reply with a bunch of non-scriptural assertions and anger filled rhetoric? Oh well??

[bridgeforsale]

Have you ever read calvin's Institiutes of the Christian Religion.
Secondly Calvinism has little problem with people being destined to damnation. Afterall if God predestines the elect to be saved, then those who are not of the elect are predestined for damnation.
We use Acts 9:10-24 as justification for this beleif.

Indeed God did choose Paul for special work -- but that verse has no bearing on election generally.

Can you site your source on Calvin for that.
Granted if Calvin did say it, then I would consider him to be wrong (as that does not line up with 5 point Calvinism).

the wikipedia reference for John Calvin -- go all the way down and click the link for his book on secret providence (it comes up in a pretty good format & allows you to download a pdf file)

We Calvinists do beleive that those who are predestined are the elect, and therefore those who are not predestined to be part of the elect are effectively damned. We do not blame God for this as this comes into our doctrine of Free Agency (which at the end of the day is pretty much like your doctrine of free will).

However, consider verses like Deuteronomy 30:19 or Isaiah 1:19, or Matt chap 11. These reveal that indeed God gives us a choice. God does not now and has not ever elected individually. He elects groups -- the descendants of Jacob, the children of the promise, etc.

He may have been....all that means is he was human and he had character flaws. I've heard way worse comments about Paul.

fair point

Bunk! Was Calvin establishing a new Church model? Well yeah, the only other model was the RCC which Calvin plainly felt was wrong, as did those around him. Did he try get passed off as a new Pope? No!

that's not correct -- Calvin was actually exiled from Geneva for a time because of his hunger for power.

You might as well accuse John Wesley of papal aspirations when he was setting up methody. (and I'm sure you would agree that would be absurd)

Wesley never wanted to leave the Anglican church (he felt Apostolic succession was important). Thus I would equate Calvin with Wesley in this regard.

The closest you can come to that is Servetus. Servetus was a unitarian heretic. He had already been tried in abstentia for the Spanish inquisition. Calvin had made it clear to Servetus during their correspondence, that he would tried as a heretic if he came to Geneva.
Servetus came to Geneva, was tried as a heretic and executed. (afterall what was the punishment at the time for heresy? death)

actually servetus was one of many examples. There are another two famous cases (whose names escape me right now) but Calvin did make a practice out of punishing or executing detractors -- Wesley on the other hand wrote a famous sermon against bigotry and was all about Christian love & brotherhood. Now -- none of this proves Wesley right & Calvin wrong (I depart from Wesley in some areas -- but not as aggressively as I depart from Calvin).

Thus arguement from outrage.
Was Calvin right in persuing the death penalty....I don't know, and I will not defend him as to whether or not he was right.
Personally, I would say not, but you must remember that at the time Heresy was punishable by death.

it should be noted only the Romanists and Calvinists ever used the death penalty.

When will you remember that I am a CALVINIST!
And you haven't bothered to respond to a number of points that have been made here.
And you have yet to retract your comment about John Wesley.
You have yet to deal with the verses that give some trouble to us Calvinists. the ones like Paul stating people have left the faith...

I'm not sure what your talking about (maybe I missed a post of your -- if I did apologies, I'll look for it)?

Bunk! Everyone interprets scripture. Heck, if you're reading it from an english translation you're interpreting an interpreted version.

Indeed -- but with respect Calvin interpretted about as wrong as it can possibly be interpretted.

Tell me, how would a child interpret this:
This charge I entrust to you, Timothy, my child, in accordance with the prophecies previously made about you, that by them you may wage the good warfare, holding faith and a good conscience. By rejecting this, some have made shipwreck of their faith, among whom are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme. (1 Timothy 1:18-20, ESV)

Paul was talking about people he had kicked out of the church -- not an act of God.

people have provided scripture rebuttals to you, you have ignored them

Please take your own advice.

dued I have a job -- I can't sit on Tweb all day long? In fact I just signed on about an hour ago??? I'll look for those rebuttals.

Okay -- I just looked & I only posted one post of any substance which is here and no-one replied to it??? What's up with that?

[Raphael]

Arminius_Wesley, my apologies, but you appear to have missed that from my comment of "When will you remember that I am a CALVINIST!" onwards, I was responding to Carico.

I should have made it clearer.

I'll respond to your other comments later as I too am at work.

Once again my apologies for the lack of clarity.